Reallifedude
|
The Standells
editPositive contributions to improve the article on The Standells are of course welcome. However, it is quite clear that the accuracy of some of the statements in the article is contentious, between the supporters of different individuals and "factions", if I can call them that, in the question of the band's history and the ownership of the rights to use the name. The website at http://thestandellsband.com/ clearly stands on one side of that dispute, and other pages such as this Facebook page stand on the other side. Experienced editors here know all that, and you referred to it yourself in this comment. This article needs to present a balanced, neutral, view, taking all points of view into account and explaining them, without taking sides and - crucially - depending on independent reliable sources rather than those from one side or the other. That's not an easy thing to do, but WP editors collectively should continue to try to do that, so that the article does not take either side in the dispute. I'd be grateful if you could bear that in mind, because edits that clearly take a partial, non-independent, position will be reverted. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
- PS: And please don't treat other Wikipedia pages as sources - WP:CIRCULAR. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- ... and, again, please don't WP:BATTLEFIELD. It's inappropriate, the article will be reverted to give a neutral balanced picture, and you may be blocked. It's just not worth it, trust me. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at The Standells shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.
If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
http://www.facebook.com/Standells is a dead link. Facebook has apparently disabled this page. As to current members, you and your editors have apparently chosen to list "current members" according to which "reliable" sources exactly? Seems your "sources" are those belonging/controlled/engendered by one of the "factions." Understandably, the current members/former members situation is in dispute, but why "side" with one "faction?" If neutrality is the end game, then what is Wikipedia to do in such situations? This is, obviously up to you, not me. There is a delicate balance in terms of not confusing the public vs not putting information up which is cleary rooted in controversy. You've done an excellent job as to clearly showing there is a dispute. It's just in the "members" section where things get tricky...